Ajmer Road, Jaipur v. Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur

Judgment

1. Petitioner has challenged order dated 29.05.2007 issued by Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. He has also assailed order dated

15.03.2008, whereby the appeal filed by him against the aforesaid penalty order has been dismissed.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1985 and later on promoted on the post of Inspector on 01.12.1997. While the petitioner was [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (2 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] posted as Station House Officer (S.H.O.) at Shahpura (Bhilwara) in the year 2004, a false complaint was received in the office of Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer, which was unsigned, in which allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he had allegedly entered in the house of one Kan Singh and behaved in inappropriate manner with the ladies present in the house. Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer sent the said complaint for preliminary enquiry to the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, who thereafter, submitted one detailed preliminary enquiry report dated 08.06.2004, in which allegations levelled against the petitioner were found false and the charges were not found proved. Instead of relying upon such preliminary enquiry report, another preliminary enquiry was conducted, in which also, it was concluded that no such incident as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place.

3. Despite there being two preliminary enquiries and in both the enquiries, no misconduct was found against the petitioner, yet Additional Director General of Police directed for conducting one more preliminary enquiry, in which the allegations were found to be prime facie proved against the petitioner. On the basis of such third preliminary enquiry report dated 26.08.2024, the Additional Director General of Police vide its letter dated 05.10.2004 directed for issuing charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1958') against the petitioner and one another person Jitendra Singh, Constable.

4. Although, vide letter dated 05.10.2004, directions were given for issuing charge sheet for imposing minor penalty under Rule [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (3 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] 17 of the Rules of 1958, yet in quite surprising manner, one charge sheet under Rule 16/18 for conducting joint enquiry for the purpose of imposing major penalty was issued against the petitioner, in which the same allegations with regard to forcibly entering in the house of Kan Singh as well as misbehaving with the females of his family were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet denying all the charges. Thereafter, on account of not being satisfied with the reply to the charge sheet, decision was taken to conduct regular departmental enquiry and Additional Superintendent of Police (City & Headquarter) Ajmer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the Rules, where opportunity was given to both the sides i.e. to the department as well as delinquent employee to produce their evidence. During enquiry, even the alleged victims

Smt. Ladu Kanwar and Smt. Gainda Kanwar were produced before the Enquiry Officer, who categorically stated that the petitioner never came to their house, nor the said victims were ever subjected to any harassment by the petitioner. It was also submitted that thereupon prosecution representative declared both the victims as hostile and sought permission for cross-examination of victims. Even the cross-examination was conducted, in which also, no statement whatsoever was given by the victims against the petitioner.

5. It was further submitted that in quite suspicious manner, the department representative did not produce initial two preliminary enquiry reports conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and other Officer, in which nothing was found against the petitioner, yet only third preliminary enquiry report, in which it was suggested that the misconduct has been committed by [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (4 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] the petitioner was placed on record. Both the Officers, who recorded findings in favour of the petitioner in initial two preliminary enquiries, were not asked to depose before the Enquiry Officer and only third Officer, who gave third preliminary enquiry report against the petitioner was produced as witness in the enquiry proceedings. Still, after considering the entire material on record and more particularly, statements of the victims, who were only eye witnesses of the alleged incident, the Enquiry Officer categorically recorded the finding that charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved.

6. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued one show cause notice dated 05.03.2006 by recording points of disagreement in the said notice to highlight the issue on which the Disciplinary Authority was having dissenting view. Bare perusal of the said points would reveal that instead of referring to any evidence which was recorded during regular departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority referred only to the report in third preliminary enquiry and only on the basis of the documents and statements which were recorded during such preliminary enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police behind the back of the petitioner, the same were made basis for dissenting note and the petitioner was directed to submit the representation in respect of points of disagreement reflected in notice dated 05.03.2006.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed his detailed reply to notice dated 05.03.2006, in which he referred the specific statements given by the alleged victims during the regular enquiry and it was also submitted that when during regular enquiry by giving specific statements, alleged [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (5 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] victims have not levelled any allegations against the petitioner, then, under these circumstances, the preliminary enquiry report, which was drawn behind the back of the petitioner, could not have been relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority for framing the points of disagreement. It was also submitted that when regular enquiry has been conducted, no penalty could have been proposed or inflicted on the basis of any preliminary enquiry.

8. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed penalty order dated 29.05.2007, wherein by giving conjectural findings based upon the preliminary enquiry report and by ignoring the report of regular disciplinary enquiry, major penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that penalty order dated 29.05.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is against the fundamental principle that the report of Enquiry Officer, after conducting regular enquiry, should prevail over the report of any preliminary enquiry, which was conducted behind the back of the delinquent. It has also been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in biased manner and has shown attitude of pick and choose for the reason that in case, the reports given during the preliminary enquiries were taken to be significant by the Disciplinary Authority, then the initial two preliminary enquiry reports, in which nothing was found against the petitioner, ought to have also been considered by the Disciplinary Authority, but instead of doing so, only one preliminary enquiry report, which was against the petitioner, was taken into consideration. [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (6 of 13) [CW-15680/2010]

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that feeling aggrieved by penalty order dated 29.05.2007, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, in which again, it was highlighted that during the regular enquiry, the victims have given statements in favour of the petitioner and even upon meticulous examination of the statements given by the victims, no misconduct can be proved against the petitioner. It was also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has committed serious error of law in ignoring the report of regular disciplinary enquiry and by selectively relying upon the preliminary enquiry report.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further indicates that the aforesaid appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.03.2008 in quite cryptic manner and none of the grounds raised by the petitioner in memo of appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the penalty order as well as appellate order are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs. Union of India, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 42; State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine 891; Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, (2013) 4 SCC 301 and Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (1997) 1 SCC 299.

12. Per contra, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature and related to outraging modesty of the [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (7 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] women. Under these circumstances, looking to the seriousness of the issue, when the true facts were not brought on record during first two preliminary enquiries, decision was taken to conduct third preliminary enquiry, in which, after meticulous examination of the victims, affidavits submitted by them as well as statements of other witnesses, a report was given that the petitioner was involved in serious misconduct. The said preliminary enquiry report was sufficient enough to enable the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision that regular enquiry under the provisions of the Rules of 1958 should be conducted against the petitioner. Accordingly, a charge sheet containing specific charges referring to serious misconduct of the petitioner was served upon the petitioner as well as the co-delinquent-Jitendra Singh and joint enquiry was conducted. However, during joint enquiry, the Enquiry Officer totally ignored the report of the preliminary enquiry in which it was held that the petitioner has committed misconduct. Hence, short comings and defects in the enquiry report were pointed out by the Disciplinary Authority in notice dated 05.03.2006, whereby after disclosing the points of disagreement with the findings of Enquiry Officer in detail, due opportunity was given to the petitioner for submitting representation against such points of disagreement and after considering the charge sheet, reply, report of Enquiry Officer as well as the preliminary enquiry report, after giving sound findings, a decision was taken to impose penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect, which is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that as the Appellate Authority has simply concurred with the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority, hence there was no requirement [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (8 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] to give any detailed findings. It was also submitted that although, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as the proposal was only to issues charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, which was given by the Additional Director General of Police, but ignoring that proposal, charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 has been issued, such argument is misconceived for the reason that decision for issuing charge sheet was to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority, which was the Director General of Police in the instant case and after examining the entire record, he took the decision to issue charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, in which, no error can be found or pointed out.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the charges levelled against the petitioner revolve around the alleged incident which took place with two alleged victims namely, Smt. Ladu Kanwar and Smt. Gainda Kanwar. It has also come on record that prior to issuance of charge sheet under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958, as many as three preliminary enquiries by different officers were conducted. One of such report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, District Bhilwara has been placed on record as Annexure-3, which clearly reveals that no such incident had taken place and the issue was unnecessarily sensitised for baseless and unfounded reasons. Another report dated 03.09.2004 (Annexure-4) also reveals that no such incident had taken place. However, thereafter, without referring to two initial preliminary enquiry reports, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the decision was taken to conduct third preliminary enquiry. Admittedly, during [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (9 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] third preliminary enquiry, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and all the statements were recorded behind his back.

15. Thereafter, merely relying upon third preliminary enquiry report, decision was taken to conduct enquiry, which was initially proposed to be conducted under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, yet charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.

16. Reply to charge sheet was submitted by the petitioner denying all the charges levelled against him and thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who was of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and he conducted a detailed enquiry. Enquiry Report (Annexure-7) reveals that during enquiry, statements of as many as 11 witnesses including the alleged victims and the officer, who conducted third preliminary enquiry, were also recorded. During the enquiry, both the victims have stated in unequivocal terms that they did not recognise the petitioner and he never entered into their house, nor did he commit any incident as alleged in the complaint. Even the Presenting Officer, who was prosecuting the enquiry against the petitioner on behalf of the respondent-department, conducted cross-examination with said victims, but even during cross-examination, no inconsistent statement with the statements earlier given by them has come out. After analysing the statements of all the witnesses as well as the documents on record, a clear factual finding was given by the Enquiry Officer revealing that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been found proved.

17. Thereafter, a notice dated 05.03.2006 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority which reveals that the sole basis and foundation of the notice was the third preliminary enquiry report and [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (10 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] the statements recorded and documents collected during third preliminary enquiry and a news published in the newspaper. While submitting reply to said notice, the petitioner objected that when regular enquiry was conducted and the same witnesses were re- examined in regular enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, the statements, if any, given during the preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, could not have been relied upon and after the result of regular enquiry conducted under Rule 16/18 of the Rules of 1958, any report given during preliminary enquiry was totally insignificant and meaningless.

18. Thereafter, order dated 29.05.2007 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Bare perusal of the same would reveal that although the order seems to be detailed order, yet findings have been recorded only in one para which is apparently based upon result of third preliminary enquiry and the issues raised by the petitioner that after the result of regular enquiry, preliminary enquiry loses its significance, has not been dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority. Even otherwise, the findings of Disciplinary Authority in order to infer the factum of alleged incident is based upon surmises, conjectures and on fake assumptions. The specific statements of the witnesses recorded during enquiry have been ignored and merely inferences were attempted to be drawn by the Disciplinary Authority by reading in between the lines, which is totally whimsical, irrational and illogical on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.

19. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, in which legitimate grounds to assail the penalty order were given in detail. However, the Appellate Authority [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (11 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] has rejected the appeal mechanically by a cryptic, vague and evasive order dated 15.03.2008. As per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958, the Appellate Authority is under obligation to deal and consider each and every relevant ground raised in the memo of appeal by the delinquent appellant, yet in the instant case, no such ground was even referred to in the entire order dated 15.03.2008 and the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by simply recording a finding that the petitioner has only repeated his earlier arguments. Thus, non-reasoned and non-speaking order dated

15.03.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority is directly against the provisions of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958.

20. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra) that the report of preliminary enquiry does not have any legal significance once regular enquiry is conducted as per the disciplinary rules. Importance of preliminary enquiry is simply not more than a fact finding report and the penalty cannot be imposed upon the delinquent merely on the basis of report of preliminary enquiry.

21. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh (supra), after relying upon the aforesaid decision in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra), it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact so as to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed or not and on the basis of findings recorded in preliminary enquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (12 of 13) [CW-15680/2010]

22. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway AIR 1960 SC 992, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held."

23. In the case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issuance of charge sheet and after full fledged enquiry, preliminary enquiry loses its importance.

24. Thus, after analysing the aforesaid precedents, it can be safely deduced that preliminary enquiry is only a fact-finding exercise undertaken at the pre-disciplinary stage to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for initiating regular departmental proceedings. It's purpose is limited to enable the disciplinary authority to decide whether charges should be framed or not. It does not by itself determine the guilt or innocence of the delinquent- employee. Once a regular enquiry is initiated in accordance with the statutory disciplinary rules, with due opportunity afforded to the charged employee to contest the evidence, cross-examine witnesses and adduce defence material, the outcome of such enquiry alone governs the fate of disciplinary proceedings. The preliminary enquiry being merely recommendatory in nature, loses its significance and cannot override, dilute or supplement the findings recorded in the regular enquiry. The law consistently recognises that the final enquiry conducted under the prescribed procedure is the substantive basis for disciplinary action and any observations in the preliminary [2025:RJ-JP:38474] (13 of 13) [CW-15680/2010] enquiry turns into insignificance once the competent Enquiry Officer under the statutory rules gives his findings after conducting regular enquiry in compliance of principles of natural justice and statutory mandate.

25. After giving anxious consideration to the material on record as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also legal provisions, this Court is of the considered view that writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

26. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Orders dated 29.05.2007 and 15.03.2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for all the consequential benefits which shall be sanctioned and released to the petitioner by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

27. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed off. MANOJ NARWANI-JATIN /15 (ANAND SHARMA),J